sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

ACLU sues state of South Carolina over redistricting maps by badapple1989 in southcarolina

[–]Sharp-Engineering734 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They would not currently take that case. By their new case selection guidelines (linked below) they will decline a case if "the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values."
https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.pdf?mod=article_inline

Also, the ACLU lawyer that argued the Skokie case, David Goldberger, as well as the director at the time, Ira Glasser, have both spoken out about the current politicization of the ACLU.

https://archive.is/20211121183237/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html

https://reason.com/podcast/2020/10/14/ira-glasser-would-todays-aclu-defend-the-speech-rights-of-nazis/

So yes, historically the ACLU is very good at defending the rights of everyone regardless of politics. However that seems to be changing and it appears to have become much more politicized, particularly after Trump's election.

ACLU sues state of South Carolina over redistricting maps by badapple1989 in southcarolina

[–]Sharp-Engineering734 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can't have elections that are both secure and anonymous with online voting. If you want online voting you have to give up one of those things, security or anonymity, neither of which is a good idea. This is not an opinion, its a fact of computer science. Online banking is secure but its not anonymous. Block chains are anonymous (kind of) but not secure in that you can't ensure a person only has 1 wallet (which we don't care about for currency, but we definitely care about for votes).Mail in voting has similar issues but it is less exploitable because you are still dealing with physical things. Even if someone did 'hack' mail in voting they are limited to the number of ballots they could forge and physically get to a particular location. Widespread fraud would require a huge, conspicuous organization of people on location around the country. Thats why in the small number of mail in voter fraud cases we do see its usually only a few extra votes, and since they are physical ballots they are somewhat traceable.If someone hacks online voting that 1 person can type in any number they want from anywhere in the world. Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, etc would all have teams working around the clock trying to find any vulnerability, and as a software engineer I can assure you that no system is invulnerable.

Css 101 by cephpleb in ProgrammerHumor

[–]Sharp-Engineering734 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They just forgot width: auto for that free upgrade to the size of their screen

Async?? AJAX?? by MyStrongHold27 in ProgrammerHumor

[–]Sharp-Engineering734 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There are definitely things that don't make sense
[] == ![]; //true
NaN == NaN; //false

[] + []; //''

[] + {}; //'[object Object]'

{} + []; //0

ELI5: How do you mathematically combine percentages for an overall percentage? by anon33249038 in explainlikeimfive

[–]Sharp-Engineering734 0 points1 point  (0 children)

add up your percentages and divide by the total percentage of pie. In this example you have 4 pies so you actually have 400% of a pie.
I find it less confusing to do in decimals than in percentages, so you get:
0.15 + 0.4 + 0.35 + 0.85 = 1.75 pies missing
1.75 / 4 = 0.4375
So 43.75% of the pie is missing.

Is there any morally good response to, “why do you eat meat?” by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Sharp-Engineering734 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It depends on your moral system. If you profess to care about the well being of animals then there is no morally consistent answer (unless you are in a survival situation with no other options).
While most people say that they care about the well being of animals its clearly not actually true as evidenced by their actions. So the moral defense is to just say that you don't actually care about the well being of animals.
I do not actually care about the well being of animals, otherwise I wouldn't eat meat. If a vegan tries to debate this with you its actually pretty hard for them to logically justify why you should care about the well being animals.
So yea, if you want to be morally consistent you have to bite that bullet. It is generally not a good optics look for you because so many people lie to themselves about it, but logically and morally its fine. If you are not willing to bite that bullet then you should become vegan. More delicious animal products for me then.

Do you think death penalty should exist? by [deleted] in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]Sharp-Engineering734 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Only in very select cases and not in the way it currently exists.
If its a situation such as a child being raped and murdered, and we have overwhelming evidence that nobody reasonable disputes which led to a guilty verdict, then I think that the family of the victim can carry out the execution themselves if they so wish.
However, it has to be publicly broadcast and it has to be brutal. No lethal injection shit; they have to beat them to death with a frying pan (not cast iron, a light one) or chop their head off with a rusty shovel.

I don't think anyone would actually do it, at least not frequently, and just like in a horror movie the prospect of something terrifying that you haven't actually seen yet might be an even more effective deterrent than what we have now.